Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebaines

Not quite.

---

Hello e:

**greenie** Good catch!

excon

Well since the Democrats seemed to consider the Constitution as a road block getting in the "WAY" of their agenda... reading it was appropriate. Because so many seemed to be ignorant of what's in it.

And its NOT written by lawyers... or only able to be read by lawyers... its written in plain, clear easy to read english.

Quote:

---

you wound up pointing out that the Constitution is a living breathing document that GROWS with time.

---

Wrong again... there are provisions for changing the Constitution called amendments. I have no issue with the Constitution being changed by amendment as that was the original intent of the Founders.

Quote:

---

But what was the purpose of reading it in the first place

---

To demonstrate that the laws they make should be in compliance with the Constitution . Why do you have a problem with the reading ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebaines

Not quite. They had no problem reading the part about US Senators being appointed by their state legislatures, although that was changed by the 17th amendment. Or the bits about Presidential succession, changed by the 25th amendment.

The reality is they didn't read the part about "non-free" persons counting as 3/5 of a person because it woud have been an embarrassing TV moment - imagine the poor person assigned to read that out loud, and how his opponent would exploit that clip in ads at the next election. They also didn't include the two amendments dealing with prohibition.

---

Not according to the Washington Compost.
Notable passages of Constitution left out of reading in the House

I read the Washington COMpost... and there is nothing about that rag that's ProRepublican or Anti Democrat.

Personally, I sent a letter to the editor asking them when they will make the name change to PRAVDA. I doubt it will be published.


Got one hell of a laugh yesterday... A Subcription letter from the New York Times... wife and I both laughed that we get enough of the DNC propaganda via the COMpost... and on our dime.

#83 edit. Also the 112th Congress under new rules will be required to attach to any bill the provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to make the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Wrong again....there are provisions for changing the Constitution called amendments. I have no issue with the Constitution being changed by amendment as that was the original intent of the Founders.

---

Hello again, tom:

I don't disagree. CHANGES need to be done through the amendment process... However, INTERPRETATIONS, are done through executive order, and/or the legislative or judicial process..

A good example of that is the Citizens United decision... Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that corporations are entitled to the same rights people have. But, the right wing Supreme Court INTERPRETED the Constitution in such a way, as though it did - even though they interpreted it differently for the past 100 years. You certainly didn't mind that "change".

Did they do that because the Constitution is living or breathing? They certainly didn't do it because it SAYS so.

excon

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Are you saying an individual can petition the government but a group of people can't ?

Are you saying an individual has the right to free speech but not a group of people ?

Are you saying that a person can try to influence their lawmakers but not a group of people ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

#83 edit. Also the 112th Congress under new rules will be required to attach to any bill the provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to make the law.

---

How silly - what is that supposed to prove? For almost all legislation all they need do is attach a copy of the commerce clause and be done with it. That's what they would have done if this rule had been in place when they passed Obama care. Until a suit reaches the Supreme Court there is no right or wrong answer as to whether a particular law passed by Congress is constitutional or not.

I predict that once both the House and Senate are under control of the same party this little gem will quietly disappear - won't matter whether the Republicans or Democrats are in control.

I take them at their word until they prove it wrong. I understand that the commerce clause has been interpreted to meaning all encompassing power. I see it differently . What they mean is that they are restricted by the powers assigned them in Article 1 Sec 8. But if they take a broad interpretation of that I'll be one of their biggest critics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

?

---

Hello again, tom:

The question isn't what I believe.. The question IS, an INTERPRETATION you LIKE and I DON'T, happened WITHOUT a constitutional amendment. That shows the Constitution lives and breathes, because you can't find rights for GROUPS of people listed ANYWHERE in that document... They just aren't there.

excon

I didn't see... or whatever... anyplace in the constitution. THis living and breathing crap is a liberal concept to let them ignore what's clearly written in plain english... because they know they will never get it changed to their definition of the week via the required amendment process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

THis living and breathing crap is a liberal concept to let them ignore whats clearly written in plain english....

---

Hello again, smoothy:

Then find me the PLAIN ENGLISH that gives corporations free speech rights.

excon

So a petition and assembly (1st amendment rights )is something an individual does and not a group ? Do you really think the Founders thought that ? Lol

Explain to me where in the constitution that says it means anything but exactly what its words say.

Because a "Quote" "Living Docuiment" wouldn't need actual amendments to it... yet the constitution SPECIFICALLY calls for any changes to it to be via the AMENDMENT process.


Incidentally... "We the People" doesn't mean "Just us liberals".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

so a petition and assembly (1st amendment rights )is something an individual does and not a group ? Do you really think the Founders thought that ? lol

---

Hello again:

WORDS. Show me the WORDS that says corporations have free speech rights...

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:

WORDS. Show me the WORDS in that says corporations have free speech rights...

excon

---

Corporations are part of the "WE the People" THey aren't part of the "We the Machines" not yet anyway... this isn't The Terminater. Corporations are owned and staffed by American Citizens that don't give up rights the moment they go to work.


Incidentally... NPR, CBS, NBC, CNN are all corporations... yet THEY stick their noses into everything.

Show me where Corporations aren't covered. Or more specificly... where they are excluded.


Because the Constitution is pretty implicit about what rights the Federal Government Doesn't have. Yet it is completely silent about businesses. And yet... Businesses existed back then too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Corporations are part of the "WE the People"

---

Hello again, smoothy:

That's an INTERPRETATION of what WE the people means.. It may or may NOT be what the founders thought, since they didn't use PLAIN ENGLISH to say anything about corporations. Your interpretation is as good as anyone's, since the word corporation cannot be found anywhere in "we the people".

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, smoothy:

That's an INTERPRETATION of what WE the people means.. It may or may NOT be what the founders thought, since they didn't use PLAIN ENGLISH to say anything about corporations. Your interpretation is as good as anyone's, since the word corporation cannot be found anywhere in "we the people".

excon

---

Really... care to prove that... where is it defined in the Constitution that Businesses are not covered... but foreign terrorists are?

I've read it... nowhere are businesses mentioned as being not covered in the Constitution. Yet the left argues they aren't... and amazingly at the same time and the same breath... THEY argue Foreign terrorists are entitled constitutional protections and nowhere in that document are citizens and residents of other countries included.

And it IS written in clear english... you don't HAVE to have 4 years of law school to read it. Because it means exactly what it says.

Hello again, smootho:

We're done. You're off the rails again.

excon